4 ms·

I plainly did not say that there was nothing to do about it, but I appreciate your enthusiastic defense of the forests. Unless we stop clear-cutting in the shor

I plainly did not say that there was nothing to do about it, but I appreciate your enthusiastic defense of the forests. Unless we stop clear-cutting in the short term, there won't be any rainforests left by the time the temperatures hit 45C.

jacquesm 3y ago
Both are a problem. The time to act is now not when the temperatures are so high that the trend alone + momentum will be enough to reach the point of no return. We really need those trees. So instead of trying to dismiss the article you could do a better job at making the case for action instead of pretending that there is 'plenty of room' when clearly there isn't. Because even in this comment you give another reason to say it's pointless and that we will hit 45 degrees. Clearcutting rainforest is a huge problem, bigger so because the rich countries arguing that the poor countries shouldn't be doing this after clearcutting their own land is hypocritical to the extreme. But rising temperatures are by themselves also a huge problem and this is an 'either/or' situation, which means we need to tackle all of these in ways that last.
- mentalpiracy 3y ago
  Genuine question: would you please quote where I dismissed the entire study? (note that I have slightly modified the wording of the first sentence since your original reply - the original phrasing was: >>> "approaching" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this title - far more than is supported by the abstract (imo) ) I was critical of a single word in the title.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That's exactly the problem though: rather than to build upon the ideas in the article all you did was find fault with a single word, and that drove your comment. Instead, if you were to take this serious you could approach it constructively rather than destructively. It's maybe a bit more work but I think the cumulative effect of that would result in a much better discussion around the subject matter. 6 degrees difference sounds like it is huge, right? But: that's 6 degrees with a margin of error, and with a difference per species (it is an average!) that further enlarges that margin for error. Then there are possible feedback mechanisms to contend with, as well as various local effects. Rather than to just accentuate the fact that 'approaching' is doing the heavy lifting it would be trivial to point out that this is how scientists communicate around things they are not 100% sure of (and that includes most things), but meanwhile us silly laypeople should not assume that because the statement is made carefully that it still is a warning and so can't be dismissed out of hand. That is more typing but it takes you out of 'dismissal', which is how I read your original comment, especially with the 'far more' in there which is - ironically - doing a lot of heavy lifting in your original comment.
- landemva 3y ago
  > clearcutting their own land is hypocritical to the extreme. Hypocritical++ is cutting someone else's trees and shipping across an ocean to be burned for renewable subsidies. UK electricity plant converted from coal to burn wood from Canada. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63089348 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63089348
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Talk about perverse incentives... wow. That takes the whole concept to new heights.

jacquesm 3y ago

Both are a problem. The time to act is now not when the temperatures are so high that the trend alone + momentum will be enough to reach the point of no return. We really need those trees. So instead of trying to dismiss the article you could do a better job at making the case for action instead of pretending that there is 'plenty of room' when clearly there isn't. Because even in this comment you give another reason to say it's pointless and that we will hit 45 degrees. Clearcutting rainforest is a huge problem, bigger so because the rich countries arguing that the poor countries shouldn't be doing this after clearcutting their own land is hypocritical to the extreme. But rising temperatures are by themselves also a huge problem and this is an 'either/or' situation, which means we need to tackle all of these in ways that last.

mentalpiracy 3y ago
Genuine question: would you please quote where I dismissed the entire study? (note that I have slightly modified the wording of the first sentence since your original reply - the original phrasing was: >>> "approaching" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this title - far more than is supported by the abstract (imo) ) I was critical of a single word in the title.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That's exactly the problem though: rather than to build upon the ideas in the article all you did was find fault with a single word, and that drove your comment. Instead, if you were to take this serious you could approach it constructively rather than destructively. It's maybe a bit more work but I think the cumulative effect of that would result in a much better discussion around the subject matter. 6 degrees difference sounds like it is huge, right? But: that's 6 degrees with a margin of error, and with a difference per species (it is an average!) that further enlarges that margin for error. Then there are possible feedback mechanisms to contend with, as well as various local effects. Rather than to just accentuate the fact that 'approaching' is doing the heavy lifting it would be trivial to point out that this is how scientists communicate around things they are not 100% sure of (and that includes most things), but meanwhile us silly laypeople should not assume that because the statement is made carefully that it still is a warning and so can't be dismissed out of hand. That is more typing but it takes you out of 'dismissal', which is how I read your original comment, especially with the 'far more' in there which is - ironically - doing a lot of heavy lifting in your original comment.
landemva 3y ago
> clearcutting their own land is hypocritical to the extreme. Hypocritical++ is cutting someone else's trees and shipping across an ocean to be burned for renewable subsidies. UK electricity plant converted from coal to burn wood from Canada. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63089348 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63089348
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Talk about perverse incentives... wow. That takes the whole concept to new heights.